This is an entertaining account of the differences between Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, centering around a brief incident during a seminar at Cambridge in 1946, but extending beyond that into the social, political and philosophical contexts around these two men. It's a slender topic padded out with extraneous information (most absurdly, what everyone could have been doing for fun instead of philosophy on the night in question) and considerable repetition. And it lacks a thorough account of their philosophical differences in favour of a kind of reality TV detectives' investigation into who said what to whom, where they were on the night of 25 October at 8:42pm, and who was lying. I'm surprised the authors didn't provide a map of the room with which suspects were in which seats. If nothing else, it's clear by the end that Professor Plum did it with a hot poker in room H on staircase 3. ( )

as mythologizing, punishingly dull, and trivial as it is to hear a middle-schooler talk about world war 2 history ( )

A disappointing book for me. It's mostly about the rigid personalities of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper. I expected a more in depth discussion of their ideas, not just their personal spat with each other. The ideas of these two important philosophers were given only superficial treatment. ( )

As good an event as any upon which to affix the term Linguistic Turn, and one I don't recall coming across in my graduate studies. I suspect that's a good deal to do with my unorthodox curriculum, centered in American Political Science rather than Philosophy or English Language & Literature.

Part of why the encounter is worth knowing about relates to the dispute regarding relevance of language to philosophical questions, and how this manifests specifically in this historical event. Wittgenstein asserts that language is at the root of philosophical problems (largely responsible for any problem as understood by philosophers), while Popper understands language as but a confounding factor, if at times a serious one. Another reason: the encounter, as discussed here, provides ample grounds for better understanding Wittgenstein's shift (Wittgenstein I and Wittgenstein II), as well as for understanding Popper as more than a "simple" adherent of the Viennese Circle (which he in fact wasn't).

Key elements of the encounter are ambiguous due to conflicting recollection from those attending. Was LW angry when he left? Did KP voice the jest about not threatening visiting lecturers with a poker before or after LW left the room? Was the poker brandished threateningly or used as a prop, and was it hot from the fire or cool? ( )

Really fun, two sittings. ( )